Politics
Stormy Daniels Testimony May Undermine Trump Hush-Money Trial
Clear Facts
- Legal analyst Elie Honig commented that Stormy Daniels, the adult film actress, provided “disastrous” responses during her testimony at former President Donald Trump’s New York City hush-money trial.
- Daniels admitted to disliking Trump during her cross-examination and voiced her wish for him to face consequences, if found guilty.
- Trump is charged with 34 felony counts for allegedly falsifying business records to conceal payments, including to Daniels, as a part of an effort to swerve the 2016 election. He has pleaded not guilty.
In a recent discussion, legal analyst Elie Honig shared his views on Stormy Daniels’ testimony during Donald Trump’s trial. Daniels testified about a supposed 2006 encounter with the former President, a claim Trump has consistently denied.
Honig considered Daniels’ allegations as credible. However, he mentioned her responses during cross-examination could potentially jeopardize the prosecution’s case. He noted, “The cross-exam, boy, her responses were disastrous. I mean, ‘Do you hate Donald Trump?’ ‘Yes.’ That’s a big deal. When a witness detests the person whose freedom is on the line? That’s a significant issue.”
The case, overseen by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, implicates Trump in 34 felony counts. These charges involve alleged falsified business records to hide payments, including those to Daniels. The intention was reportedly to suppress damaging information and sway the 2016 election in a “catch-and-kill” scheme. Trump has pleaded not guilty and the trial commenced last month.
During the cross-examination, Daniels’ sentiments towards Trump were examined. When asked if she despised Trump, she confirmed. In response to an inquiry about her wanting Trump to face imprisonment, she stated she wanted “him to be held accountable” and “if he is found guilty, absolutely.” She was also questioned about tweets suggesting her refusal to pay $500,000 in legal fees to Trump after an unsuccessful defamation lawsuit.
Honig, after these revelations, remarked, “The defense will argue she’s willing to defy a court order. If she’s not willing to respect a judge’s order, why would she respect the oath she took? I think the cross-examination went quite poorly. At the end, I thought they got what they needed. But I think the cross-examination is making significant progress.”
Honig’s initial impression of Daniels was that her account of the 2006 event seemed “plausible”. He added, “It’s hard for me to believe that a juror heard that and thought, this is entirely fabricated.” Despite suspecting there “may be some exaggerations,” Honig opined that it was “quite clear they had sex in 2006 in that hotel room.”
Let us know what you think, please share your thoughts in the comments below.
Lou
May 14, 2024 at 6:41 pm
Stuff flying left and right, up and down. The stuff has been hitting the fan. Making Trump look dirty.
Thomas Pratt
May 14, 2024 at 6:44 pm
First, Who cares if he had sex with Daniels?
Second, my understanding is that if sex took place, it was consensual!
Thirdly, if hush money was paid then Daniels is in breach of her contract and should face prison time for blackmail!
David Harwood
May 14, 2024 at 6:51 pm
Daniels testimony was not relevant to supposed crime that Trump has not been charged with.
Ron C
May 15, 2024 at 2:06 pm
I still haven’t heard what the crime is, what code is Bragg charging? The expired misdemeanors or some federal codes that the DOJ said didn’t apply.
Andy Dyer
May 14, 2024 at 7:59 pm
More fake Democrat news. There has been no real mention of an actual crime. When will this madness stop?
Kathleen P Beu
May 15, 2024 at 12:13 am
The trial is not about a sexual relationship. It is about bookkeeping errors. She is not a bookkeeper and therefore has nothing to say that is relevant to the case. The prosecution is trying to attack DT’s character to the jury, hopefully causing them to disregard the charges for the case and rule in the prosecution’s favor. But you would have to be blind, deaf, and dumb to not see what they are doing. There are two lawyers on the jury who should see this case for what it is: A lawfare attempt to keep DT off the campaign trail, and to diminish his character to potential voters. and if they get lucky and win – to cause voters to not vote for him. This is the dirtiest political maneuvering I have ever seen in my lifetime. The smallest thing, a bookkeeping error, a misdemeanor. tried as though it were a life-threatening action. A claim that was refused by several law agencies previously, now seen as a way to enable the loser campaign to have a chance at winning. Third world antics, don’t belong in the USA.
Ron C
May 15, 2024 at 2:09 pm
And what proof has Daniels offered that Trump even poked her ugly self? Just her say so, all I know for sure is she is black-mailing Trump after she said she never had an affair!